IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 150 of 2015 Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Date of decision: 26.11.2025 ________________________________________________

Land Acquisition Collector, HPPWD .....Appellant Versus Rupinder Singh …..Respondent ________________________________________________

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1 Whether approved for report ing?

For the appellant: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent before the learned Court below against award dated 09.01.2013, passed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Reference Case (RBT) No. 4-K/IV/2010/2007, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant Rupinder Singh (respondent herein), under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was allowed and he was held entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 283.33 per sq.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

meter, which comes to Rs. 4,57,011.29 or Rs. 4,57,000 (rounded off) alongwith additional compulsory Pacquisition charges, interest etc. .

2. The brief facts of the case are that land bearing Khata No. 39 min, Khatauni No. 47 min, Khasra No. 203/1, measuring 0-16-13 Hectares, situated in Mohal Masot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, recorded in the name of the petitioner Rupinder Singh was acquired for the construction of W.S.S. Banni Khadwana. The classification of land was Khraitar and vide Award No. 16, dated 03.03.2005, compensation of Rs. 1,42,863/- was assessed at the rate of Rs. 88.57 per hsquare meter and with all statutory benefits, the petitioner gwas awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,004/-.

i3. The petitioner/claimant, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that the assessment of compensation, qua the land brought under acquisition, was not in consonance with the prevailing market value of the land.

4. The learned Reference Court, allowed the petition of the claimant and held him entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 283.33 per sq. mePter, which comes to Rs. 4,57,011.29 or Rs. 4,57,000 (.rounded off) alongwith additional compulsory acquisition charges, interest etc. In addition to the above, the petitioner was also held entitled to solatium, additional compensation, interest on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest under Sections 28 & 34 of the Act. Hence, the appellant preferred the instant petition under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside/modify the award dated 09.01.2013, passed by the leaned Reference Court.

h5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate gGeneral for the appellant/State, learned Counsel for the irespondent and also carefully examined the records. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate contended that the learned Reference Court had wrongly appreciated the material on record and wrongly enhanced the market value of the land from Rs. 88.57 per square meter to Rs. 283.33 per square meter, which comes to Rs. 4,57,000/- and is much more than the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore,he submitted that the appeal be allowed and impugned award dated 09.01.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court be modified/set-asPide.

7. Conversely, learned counsel for. respondent contended that the learned Reference Court had rightly held him entitled for enhanced compensation, hence, the awarded amount of compensation is just and fair and necessitates no interference. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

8. As per the settled principle of law, compensation for the land acquired has to be determined at market value. Market value is the price that